2 card from the 60 and expect to get card when need is tough.
so if run 4 spree you still need the enchant removal. how many side can u dedicate. maybe 3 spree with the 2 d.rev or ware tear.
2 fight the tron not just chalice right. eldrazi tron more problem now then regular tron
You don't need to run 4x Shattering Spree. People run a combination of 2x Spree and 4x DRev. You won't have to remove 2x Chalice every game, but it gives you an out you'll be reasonably likely to see in your top 10 cards or so.
Heck, a recent deck placed with 2x By Force and 4x DRev.
Can any of you think of any discard protection in the Modern card pool that can be played for 2 or less mana outside of Leyline of Sanctity? I feel like discard is one of Burn biggest issues. Each IoK basically reads "one mana: gain three". Collective Brutality is often "two mana: gain five".
I wouldn't bother with discard hate since burn is the master of redundancy.
Just try and play your spells efficiently and topdeck the rest away.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Enjoy Standard, Modern and Music (also some Pauper, Momir, Gaming, Animations and Legacy)? Then visit my channel:Here
How's the Eldrazi Tron matchup? I don't play Burn. I have most of the cards at home, thought I'd build the deck (if Eldrazi Tron matchup is good) since there is a lot of E-Tron here at my LGS. Thanks.
How would you guys say Grim Lavamancer is placed in the current meta? Should I cut him to 1-of for something else? My list in on my signature.
Thanks!!
Recent lists either moved him to SB or cut him completely. It seems he's a little slow; also, he really shines when he can pluck creatures off the board, and there aren't many good targets in the meta these days.
Also, your list seems a little light on land. I'd cut 1 Shard Volley and add an extra Vantage or red fetch.
I might cut 1 of the lavamancers for the 19th land. However, I have been playing 18 lands for a while now (around 3 months) and I have never felt more comfortable ever before.
Additionally, maybe I could indeed cut one shard volley for another searing blaze, making the 19th land more necessary (also the shard volley was great fodder for the lavamancer). I dont think I would ever go to more than 19 lands ever again, though. Any reason why everyone plays 20 lands or is it just the standard number?
I might cut 1 of the lavamancers for the 19th land. However, I have been playing 18 lands for a while now (around 3 months) and I have never felt more comfortable ever before.
Additionally, maybe I could indeed cut one shard volley for another searing blaze, making the 19th land more necessary (also the shard volley was great fodder for the lavamancer). I dont think I would ever go to more than 19 lands ever again, though. Any reason why everyone plays 20 lands or is it just the standard number?
Most lists I see recently actually play 19. Playing 20 means you'll hit 3 mana a bit more reliably, and you're less likely to miss landfall triggers for Searing Blaze.
I personally think 18 is too few. My 18-land Zoo deck gets stuck on 1 and 2 lands with regularity.
I might cut 1 of the lavamancers for the 19th land. However, I have been playing 18 lands for a while now (around 3 months) and I have never felt more comfortable ever before.
Additionally, maybe I could indeed cut one shard volley for another searing blaze, making the 19th land more necessary (also the shard volley was great fodder for the lavamancer). I dont think I would ever go to more than 19 lands ever again, though. Any reason why everyone plays 20 lands or is it just the standard number?
I actually play 18 lands as well. I'm not skilled with statistical math myself, but according to a chart I found in someone's signature here, 18 lands maximizes the chance that we'll open on exactly two lands (34%), with a 24% chance each that we'll open on 1 or 3. This is as opposed to 19 lands, where the percentages were 22% we open with one, 33% we open with two, and 25% we open with three. This is all from memory, but I think the numbers were correct.
My recommendation is to cut the two Lavamancers and add in the fourth Blaze and the fourth Helix. Blaze especially you really wanna see on turn two, to get rid of their turn one creature and let your creature hit them for another turn.
P(1 land) = 24.4, 22.1, 19.8 for 18, 19, 20
P(2 lands) = 33.7, 33.2, 32.3 for 18, 19, 20
P(3 lands) = 23.6, 25.4, 26.9 for 18, 19, 20
I'd put more weight on the sum of 2 and 3 land hands, which is pretty insensitive to whether you're playing 18, 19, or 20 (57.3%, 58.5% and 59.3%, respectively). Outside of that, there are situations you can call absolute mulligans, (0 lands or more than 3 lands) and that goes from 18.2% to 19.2% to 20.7%, respectively. 1 landers are complicated keeps, but if you assume that it works out to keeping about half of 1 landers, then you're looking at net keep rates of 69.6, 69.7, 69.3 for 18, 19, 20. However, having 19 or 20 lands means you're more likely to pull a 1 lander off by hitting lands. It's about 30.4, 28, and 25.5 to see 0 lands through 3 draws given that you had a 1 lander. Its about 45.7, 43.2, and 40.7 through 2 draws. Beyond all of that, there's dealing with land destruction.
I don't think there are really strong statistical arguments for any of them and it comes down to personal preference. I like 19, but haven't played with 18 or 20 at all.
P(1 land) = 24.4, 22.1, 19.8 for 18, 19, 20
P(2 lands) = 33.7, 33.2, 32.3 for 18, 19, 20
P(3 lands) = 23.6, 25.4, 26.9 for 18, 19, 20
I'd put more weight on the sum of 2 and 3 land hands, which is pretty insensitive to whether you're playing 18, 19, or 20 (57.3%, 58.5% and 59.3%, respectively). Outside of that, there are situations you can call absolute mulligans, (0 lands or more than 3 lands) and that goes from 18.2% to 19.2% to 20.7%, respectively. 1 landers are complicated keeps, but if you assume that it works out to keeping about half of 1 landers, then you're looking at net keep rates of 69.6, 69.7, 69.3 for 18, 19, 20. However, having 19 or 20 lands means you're more likely to pull a 1 lander off by hitting lands. It's about 30.4, 28, and 25.5 to see 0 lands through 3 draws given that you had a 1 lander. Its about 45.7, 43.2, and 40.7 through 2 draws. Beyond all of that, there's dealing with land destruction.
I don't think there are really strong statistical arguments for any of them and it comes down to personal preference. I like 19, but haven't played with 18 or 20 at all.
To add to the mathematics, if your mulligan criteria are: (1) mulligan all sevens, sixes, and fives with 0 or more than 3 lands, (2) mulligan all fives with more than 2 lands, and (3) mulligan all sevens, sixes, and fives with 1 land with probability p, then--to optimize your average starting hand size--you should run 22/21/20/19/18/17/16 lands if p is less than the following values (but not less than each of the previous): 0.12/0.30/0.48/0.65/0.82/0.99/1.01. To estimate how many lands you should run, draw 6 cards from a 41 non-land deck many times and determine the proportion of keeps, then look to the above table.
Does anyone have an alternative mulligan criterion set? I enjoy computing these things.
I used: Drop all 0s and all 4s or more. Keep all 2s and all 3s. Keep all 1s with average CMC of non-lands of 1.66 or less. The result was a mulligan rate of 21%, but I didn't do any optimization based on the number of lands and only observed the mulligan rate. I also didn't look at anything but 7 card hands.
I think that something like a damage score or a damage/CMC score would be useful criteria.
I think a relevant criteria should be not just what you see in your opening hand, but the likelihood that you'll have exactly 3 lands in your top 10 cards. I think running 18 lands makes it riskier to keep 1-landers.
I think your algorithm gives a pretty high 1-lander keep rate, elcon. You might want to try fewer lands. Ignoring mulligans, the likelihood that you have exactly 3 lands in your top 10 cards is maximized by having L/60 = 3/10 (as you'd expect!). Similarly, to maximize the probability of having 3 lands in your top 9 cards, you should have solve(L/60=3/9) lands in your 60-card deck.
maximize the probability of having 3 lands in your top 9 cards
That maximizes at about 19.5 lands, hence why you'd usually see 19 or 20 lands in stock lists.
However, this math doesn't take into account fetching, and whether the 20th land added is a fetch. And the impact of a fetch seems way higher than the small difference between 19 and 20 lands.
Interesting. What's the explanation of the two-peak distribution in the mulligan version?
Those plots show total damage in hand, which is approximately 3 * number of non-lands (ie. assume every card is Lightning Bolt). There are two peaks because the lower damage total peak is mulligans with too many lands and the higher damage total peak is mulligans with too few lands.
I think your algorithm gives a pretty high 1-lander keep rate, elcon. You might want to try fewer lands. Ignoring mulligans, the likelihood that you have exactly 3 lands in your top 10 cards is maximized by having L/60 = 3/10 (as you'd expect!). Similarly, to maximize the probability of having 3 lands in your top 9 cards, you should have solve(L/60=3/9) lands in your 60-card deck.
This was a first pass on some approximately reasonable criteria. I think you'd actually want to require that a 1 land hand contains at least 1 Guide/Swiftspear and contains more 1CMC spells on top of that, and I'd buy that this lowers the 1 lander keep rate. Like I said, I wasn't trying to optimize a number of lands, I was looking at a given list and estimating the mulligan rate for that list.
I think a relevant criteria should be not just what you see in your opening hand, but the likelihood that you'll have exactly 3 lands in your top 10 cards. I think running 18 lands makes it riskier to keep 1-landers.
That's a useful deckbuilding consideration but not a hand keep consideration.
I think that you'd want to require at least 1 Guide/Swift and then several other 1CMC spells (and Rift is 1CMC). The likelihood that your 1 landers become "successful" is a separate issue, and depends on how many lands you play.
Interesting. What's the explanation of the two-peak distribution in the mulligan version?
Those plots show total damage in hand, which is approximately 3 * number of non-lands (ie. assume every card is Lightning Bolt). There are two peaks because the lower damage total peak is mulligans with too many lands and the higher damage total peak is mulligans with too few lands.
Got it. I think I was just drawing a blank on what was being presented in the charts. That makes a good amount of sense now.
I think your algorithm gives a pretty high 1-lander keep rate, elcon. You might want to try fewer lands. Ignoring mulligans, the likelihood that you have exactly 3 lands in your top 10 cards is maximized by having L/60 = 3/10 (as you'd expect!). Similarly, to maximize the probability of having 3 lands in your top 9 cards, you should have solve(L/60=3/9) lands in your 60-card deck.
I modified the keep criteria and have a new mulligan rate. Mulligan all 0s and 4 or more. Keep all 1s that have at least 1 guide/swift and some number of 1CMC spells/creatures excluding Grim Lavamancer and Shard Volley. I'm using my deck list in my signature and have 19 lands. In order to calculate this, I drew 20000 random 7 card hands, which is sufficient enough to only deviate from the hypergeometric function for the land distribution by 1%. The 20 land list took away Lavamancer and added a land. The 18 land list took away a land and added a Lavamancer. This means that the number of 1CMC cards is the same for all 3 cases, since Lavamancer doesn't count.
For a hypergeometric, the expected land distribution is the following:
0 6.99%
1 24.45%
2 33.70%
3 23.65%
4 9.10%
5 1.91%
6 0.20%
7 0.01%
The "guaranteed mulligan" (not 1s, 2s, or 3s) rate is about 18.2%, and the "guaranteed keep" (2s and 3s) rate is about 57.3%.
If the required number of 1CMC cards is 4, then you end up keeping 28.5% of 1 landers for a total 7 card hand keep rate of 64.8%.
If the required number of 1CMC cards is 3, then you end up keeping 60.2% of 1 landers for a total keep rate of 72.0%.
For a hypergeometric, the expected land distribution is the following:
0 5.82%
1 22.12%
2 33.18%
3 25.41%
4 10.70%
5 2.47%
6 0.29%
7 0.01%
The "guaranteed mulligan" (not 1s, 2s, or 3s) rate is about 19.2%, and the "guaranteed keep" (2s and 3s) rate is about 58.5%.
If the required number of 1CMC cards is 4, then you end up keeping 30% of 1 landers for a total 7 card hand keep rate of 65.2%.
If the required number of 1CMC cards is 3, then you end up keeping 61% of 1 landers for a total keep rate of 71.7%.
For a hypergeometric, the expected land distribution is the following:
0 4.83%
1 19.88%
2 32.37%
3 26.98%
4 12.39%
5 3.13%
6 0.40%
7 0.02%
The "guaranteed mulligan" (not 1s, 2s, or 3s) rate is about 20.7%, and the "guaranteed keep" (2s and 3s) rate is about 59.3%.
If the required number of 1CMC cards is 4, then you end up keeping 32.7% of 1 landers for a total 7 card hand keep rate of 65.7%.
If the required number of 1CMC cards is 3, then you end up keeping 65.2% of 1 landers for a total keep rate of 72.2%.
I haven't yet checked for "playable" hands by T3 given that a hand was kept.
You don't need to run 4x Shattering Spree. People run a combination of 2x Spree and 4x DRev. You won't have to remove 2x Chalice every game, but it gives you an out you'll be reasonably likely to see in your top 10 cards or so.
Heck, a recent deck placed with 2x By Force and 4x DRev.
Just try and play your spells efficiently and topdeck the rest away.
Enjoy Standard, Modern and Music (also some Pauper, Momir, Gaming, Animations and Legacy)? Then visit my channel:Here
Thanks!!
BW BW Tokens
RG Dredgeplendid Reclamation
RW Boros Burn
GB Elves
RB Dark Goblins
WU Azorius' Relic
Recent lists either moved him to SB or cut him completely. It seems he's a little slow; also, he really shines when he can pluck creatures off the board, and there aren't many good targets in the meta these days.
Also, your list seems a little light on land. I'd cut 1 Shard Volley and add an extra Vantage or red fetch.
Additionally, maybe I could indeed cut one shard volley for another searing blaze, making the 19th land more necessary (also the shard volley was great fodder for the lavamancer). I dont think I would ever go to more than 19 lands ever again, though. Any reason why everyone plays 20 lands or is it just the standard number?
BW BW Tokens
RG Dredgeplendid Reclamation
RW Boros Burn
GB Elves
RB Dark Goblins
WU Azorius' Relic
Most lists I see recently actually play 19. Playing 20 means you'll hit 3 mana a bit more reliably, and you're less likely to miss landfall triggers for Searing Blaze.
I personally think 18 is too few. My 18-land Zoo deck gets stuck on 1 and 2 lands with regularity.
I actually play 18 lands as well. I'm not skilled with statistical math myself, but according to a chart I found in someone's signature here, 18 lands maximizes the chance that we'll open on exactly two lands (34%), with a 24% chance each that we'll open on 1 or 3. This is as opposed to 19 lands, where the percentages were 22% we open with one, 33% we open with two, and 25% we open with three. This is all from memory, but I think the numbers were correct.
EDIT: Here's that chart, courtesy of user Curby.
My recommendation is to cut the two Lavamancers and add in the fourth Blaze and the fourth Helix. Blaze especially you really wanna see on turn two, to get rid of their turn one creature and let your creature hit them for another turn.
Mardu Burn
Monogreen Stompy
Legacy
Burn
Pauper
Dimir Flicker
Monowhite Tokens
P(2 lands) = 33.7, 33.2, 32.3 for 18, 19, 20
P(3 lands) = 23.6, 25.4, 26.9 for 18, 19, 20
I'd put more weight on the sum of 2 and 3 land hands, which is pretty insensitive to whether you're playing 18, 19, or 20 (57.3%, 58.5% and 59.3%, respectively). Outside of that, there are situations you can call absolute mulligans, (0 lands or more than 3 lands) and that goes from 18.2% to 19.2% to 20.7%, respectively. 1 landers are complicated keeps, but if you assume that it works out to keeping about half of 1 landers, then you're looking at net keep rates of 69.6, 69.7, 69.3 for 18, 19, 20. However, having 19 or 20 lands means you're more likely to pull a 1 lander off by hitting lands. It's about 30.4, 28, and 25.5 to see 0 lands through 3 draws given that you had a 1 lander. Its about 45.7, 43.2, and 40.7 through 2 draws. Beyond all of that, there's dealing with land destruction.
I don't think there are really strong statistical arguments for any of them and it comes down to personal preference. I like 19, but haven't played with 18 or 20 at all.
Thanks for the number crunching on that, elcon.
Mardu Burn
Monogreen Stompy
Legacy
Burn
Pauper
Dimir Flicker
Monowhite Tokens
Does anyone have an alternative mulligan criterion set? I enjoy computing these things.
I used: Drop all 0s and all 4s or more. Keep all 2s and all 3s. Keep all 1s with average CMC of non-lands of 1.66 or less. The result was a mulligan rate of 21%, but I didn't do any optimization based on the number of lands and only observed the mulligan rate. I also didn't look at anything but 7 card hands.
I think that something like a damage score or a damage/CMC score would be useful criteria.
Interesting. What's the explanation of the two-peak distribution in the mulligan version?
That maximizes at about 19.5 lands, hence why you'd usually see 19 or 20 lands in stock lists.
However, this math doesn't take into account fetching, and whether the 20th land added is a fetch. And the impact of a fetch seems way higher than the small difference between 19 and 20 lands.
Those plots show total damage in hand, which is approximately 3 * number of non-lands (ie. assume every card is Lightning Bolt). There are two peaks because the lower damage total peak is mulligans with too many lands and the higher damage total peak is mulligans with too few lands.
This was a first pass on some approximately reasonable criteria. I think you'd actually want to require that a 1 land hand contains at least 1 Guide/Swiftspear and contains more 1CMC spells on top of that, and I'd buy that this lowers the 1 lander keep rate. Like I said, I wasn't trying to optimize a number of lands, I was looking at a given list and estimating the mulligan rate for that list.
I chose to re-do the creature damage EV calculation instead of working on mulligan rates, and I think I settled on a reasonable model for independent creatures that I posted about earlier this week. It's here: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/tier-1-modern/650623-burn?page=206#c5180
That's a useful deckbuilding consideration but not a hand keep consideration.
I think that you'd want to require at least 1 Guide/Swift and then several other 1CMC spells (and Rift is 1CMC). The likelihood that your 1 landers become "successful" is a separate issue, and depends on how many lands you play.
Got it. I think I was just drawing a blank on what was being presented in the charts. That makes a good amount of sense now.
I modified the keep criteria and have a new mulligan rate. Mulligan all 0s and 4 or more. Keep all 1s that have at least 1 guide/swift and some number of 1CMC spells/creatures excluding Grim Lavamancer and Shard Volley. I'm using my deck list in my signature and have 19 lands. In order to calculate this, I drew 20000 random 7 card hands, which is sufficient enough to only deviate from the hypergeometric function for the land distribution by 1%. The 20 land list took away Lavamancer and added a land. The 18 land list took away a land and added a Lavamancer. This means that the number of 1CMC cards is the same for all 3 cases, since Lavamancer doesn't count.
For a hypergeometric, the expected land distribution is the following:
The "guaranteed mulligan" (not 1s, 2s, or 3s) rate is about 18.2%, and the "guaranteed keep" (2s and 3s) rate is about 57.3%.
If the required number of 1CMC cards is 4, then you end up keeping 28.5% of 1 landers for a total 7 card hand keep rate of 64.8%.
If the required number of 1CMC cards is 3, then you end up keeping 60.2% of 1 landers for a total keep rate of 72.0%.
For a hypergeometric, the expected land distribution is the following:
The "guaranteed mulligan" (not 1s, 2s, or 3s) rate is about 19.2%, and the "guaranteed keep" (2s and 3s) rate is about 58.5%.
If the required number of 1CMC cards is 4, then you end up keeping 30% of 1 landers for a total 7 card hand keep rate of 65.2%.
If the required number of 1CMC cards is 3, then you end up keeping 61% of 1 landers for a total keep rate of 71.7%.
For a hypergeometric, the expected land distribution is the following:
The "guaranteed mulligan" (not 1s, 2s, or 3s) rate is about 20.7%, and the "guaranteed keep" (2s and 3s) rate is about 59.3%.
If the required number of 1CMC cards is 4, then you end up keeping 32.7% of 1 landers for a total 7 card hand keep rate of 65.7%.
If the required number of 1CMC cards is 3, then you end up keeping 65.2% of 1 landers for a total keep rate of 72.2%.
I haven't yet checked for "playable" hands by T3 given that a hand was kept.